Devo:Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

Gun rights advocates generally oppose idiotic regulation based upon no actual demonstrable need, which is the case for the regulation under discussion.

I can see why an ignorant person might be concerned about person that passes a background check even more intensive than the usual one for buying a regular rifle legally transferring and owning a $15,000 machine gun, but why exactly should owning a silencer be illegal?

In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common. Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Only Hollywood silencers make guns go FFFT, FFFT, FFFT! Ban Hollywood silencers, by all means. They're only used by scumbags.

Incidentally, you probably already own one. They're mandatory to stick on the back of your car. The device that Hiram Maxim invented he called a 'silencer', but you also frequently call them 'muffler'.

EvilEgg:I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.

At least the GOP does it the hard way and goes through the legislature. Obama is doing this with a stroke of his pen. And you can actually count instances of voter-fraud (not that that justifies voter disenfranchisement). Felons obtaining NFA weapons and using them in crimes via the NFA registry, OTOH.....

PsiChick:Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?

The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: Eight Billion (roughly)NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: 2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue. The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Devo:Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

et's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902....Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

According to the ATF, no. No one has ever done this. One person has tried and the ATF denied them.

Devo:Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

Gun rights advocates are against adding additional regulation to and already cumbersome and lengthy process (my last NFA process took seven months start to finish) that is designed to prevent an issue that the ATF itself says has never happened, and can't happen anyways because the person taking possession of the NFA item still has to fill out a From 4473 and get a background check.

The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members. With a trust, my firearms remain the property of my family. Another advantage of a trust is that it eliminates the need for chief law enforcement officer sign-off. Many times the CLEO will not sign due to their personal opinions of "It should be criminal to own a machine gun or a silencer anyway." with no regard for the actual legality of the issue.

Is it possible for this avenue to be exploited by someone who cannot pass a NICS check becoming a part of a trust and gaining access to a NFA regulated firearm? Yes. Is it likely? No. Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

1. allow holders of NFA items to will said items to family members or keep the provision that members of the trust may continue to hold the NFA item in an instance of death.

2. provide recourse for an applicant who is denied lawful ownership of an NFA item due to CLEO refusal to sign-off based on personal/political beleifs.

plausdeny:Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It should be criminal to own a machine gun or a silencer anyway.

I can see why an ignorant person might be concerned about person that passes a background check even more intensive than the usual one for buying a regular rifle legally transferring and owning a $15,000 machine gun, but why exactly should owning a silencer be illegal?

In some European countries, such as Sweden and Norway, where firearm rights are strictly controlled, use of a silencer is very common. Put everything else about their firearm aside, and they got this one right: a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders. That's a safety, health and politeness all delivered by a little metal tube with some baffles in it.

Only Hollywood silencers make guns go FFFT, FFFT, FFFT! Ban Hollywood silencers, by all means. They're only used by scumbags.

Incidentally, you probably already own one. They're mandatory to stick on the back of your car. The device that Hiram Maxim invented he called a 'silencer', but you also frequently call them 'muffler'.

Hollywood has a lot of credulous people believing a lot of false things about guns. They're literally the worst source of gun information you could possibly find.

PsiChick:/And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the ad hominem game.

My Boobies in this thread was 3 hours before you joined it with your utter lack of understanding of the topic at hand. I made three posts before you showed up to show us all how little you actually know by claiming that the CDC has been 'prevented' from actually studying the statistics and demographics homicides involving firearms.

Several people called you out on that, and pointed you to the actual study, so you decided to name-drop Adam Lanza as if his criminal actions had anything whatever to do with NFA items (they didn't), and you were again called out by several people. In response to that, you moved the goal posts and tried to claim that him murdering his mother to steal her firearms is 'the same idea' as felons getting relatives to create NFA trusts and buy machine guns for them.

And again, more than one person called you out on it, but you decided that I came into this thread solely to persecute you. On the contrary, I recognized your username and the type of posts I've seen you make before, and pointed out that this is your usual style so that people could potentially avoid wasting their time trying to actually educate you on the facts.

You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.

PsiChick:Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

Adam Lanza didn't use any NFA items.

Click Click D'oh:Do you mount your goalposts in a truck to keep them that mobile? The original question was in regards to how many times a family member has purchased an NFA item to provide to a family member to commit crime.

It's PsiChick. This and shouting 'Misogyny!' are the only two modes she has.

Click Click D'oh:As I've been saying, you have not the slightest clue what you are blathering about.

IdBeCrazyIf:BraveNewCheneyWorld: That's like saying that "free speech zones" aren't an inherent infringement on your free speech rights, even though you can say whatever you want in some abandoned parking lot where nobody will hear you.

If we want to take it literal, but fact remains the law as written has been interpreted that regulation does not violate your constitutional rights.

And if someone pisses on you and tells you it's raining, do you listen to common sense, or their "interpretation" of the liquid raining down on you? Do you honestly think the founding fathers, when they wrote "shall not be infringed" would say that it's completely within their intent to allow the government to force you to wait for nearly a year in every instance where you wanted to exercise a right?

Let's take that argument to free speech again, would it be completely ok for a sitting president to suppress all negative reports about him, as long as he allowed the reports to be published after his presidency? According to your logic, you still have the right of free speech.. it's just delayed. Are you actually defending that? Or do you see some rights as more breakable than others?

PsiChick:Zane256: Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.

That might be the point...

/We need real statistics on who commits gun killings and why before we try to address the problem.//And thank you so much, gun lobbyists, for stopping the CDC from getting us those statistics.

The stats are still out there and are better than what the CDC could offer....I mean unless you can show me a report by the CDC that breaks gun violence into two categories.....ie people with previous felonies who commit murder with a firearm and hunters who have killed their own wife in cold blood.

the majority of gun related murders (80+ percent) are committed by people with arrest records, people who have done time for previous felonies etc.

A majority of their victims (80+ percent) are also people with arrest records, people who have served time for previous felonies etc....

Criminals make up the majority of offender and victim lists. It is gangbanger on gangbanger crime, and people involved in the drug trade.

Yep. Make them have to follow the exact same laws that non-LEO gun owners must face. No machine guns allowed in your state? Then cops can't have them. No magazines over 10 rounds? Then cops can't have them. Wanna ban so-called 'assault weapons'? Then cops can't have them.

After all, those are civilian police officers, why should they have access to weapons that only belong on the battlefield?

Magorn:Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts. See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states. Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Thank you for reinforcing that these retarded gun laws are all stepping stones. THIS one won't really affect you so it's ok. The next one won't really affect you either, so it will be OK too. Right up to the point where they attempt their final agenda.

Ergo, I don't care if the proposed law wants to ban firearms for toddlers. My answer is no. This far and no farther.

heili skrimsli:c0penhaqen: Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.

Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

That replaces a "veto through inaction", ie., the CLEO can just refuse to sign the form, with an "active VETO", ie., the CLEO must fill out an additional form detailing why the person shouldn't be allowed, if they are opposed to that person getting a machine gun, and they have to submit it to the ATF within, say, 30 days of receiving notification.

That way, the CLEO has to come up with an actual, articulable *REASON* why, which can be rebutted by the attempted purchaser.

And I'd apply that to both trusts *AND* private NFA transfers.

/Actually, I'd prefer to first repeal the Hughes Amendment, and then when the sky doesn't fall, as it won't, I'd also want to repeal or highly modify NFA '34 to make it more open.

give me doughnuts: If this EO does nothing, and curtails no-one's rights, then why complain about it?

Who said it does nothing? It does nothing to curtail an actual problem with firearms getting into the hands of criminals. It does a whole heck of a lot to make it more difficult, or impossible, for law abiding people to get certain firearms.

c0penhaqen:Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

I'd rather just remove that requirement so that police chiefs can't supplant the law with their own personal opinions.

Suppressors (which if you've ever actually heard one used outside Hollywood fiction) are a safety device that protects people's hearing when firing at a range. Not only should they be legal, their use should be encouraged. OSHA should be all over that shiat for indoor ranges to protect the hearing of the employees.

plausdeny:a device that reduces (does not eliminate) the report of a shot by about -30db protects the hearing of the user and bystanders.

And even at 30 dB reduction, they're still very loud, and you still need to wear hearing protection.

IdBeCrazyIf:Skyd1v: For about 9 bucks you can piece together an adapter from the spare parts bins at your local hardware store.

/not that I would ever do that

That's the only thing I never understood in all these zombie movies is that you always invariably get the one guy who knows his guns and yet they never bring up the suppressor can when every single person I know who knows guns is aware of how to do this.

This is what bothers me about things like walking dead. Nobody thought to roll around Atlanta at night in a golf cart mode Prius with suppressed weapons and night vision gear. Or engineer industrial-scale murder with road or farm equipment.

Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

Care to give an example? Maybe with some evidence of causation?

Really, you can't think of anything, nothing even gleaned from this thread?

Nope. If you're right, I'm sure you can give me a valid citation.

* Jesus first of all you have the war on drugs, the high rate of citizen imprisonment, and lack of a comparable safety net to other countries.* You have a 2000 mile border with a third world country which has dozens of drug cartels operating with autonomy in large areas of the northern border. Prime recipe for easy drug trafficking, and that's not even counting the various routes from Carribbean routes.* ~80% of homicides and homicides offenders have an arrest record, the vast majority of those tend to be very extensive. Criminals killing criminals.* We have, and have always had, far more guns per capita than any other first world country. Even switzerland only has half as many guns per capita as we do, and our civilian number has been skyrocketing over the past decade.

A gun prohibition is not legally possibly without amending the constitution and is completely not viable beyond that. Addressing the root causes of poverty, crime rates, and adding a safety net will do far more than a gun ban. So easy bullet points:

1) end the war on drugs2) focus on jail rehabilitation for non-violent offenses3) actually enforce current firearms laws (ie felons, fugivitives, and domestic abusers trying to fill out 4473 - low hanging fruit) and give harsher sentences to people who commit violent offenses with a firearm (no chance of parole).4) Make sure the taxes become more progressive5) single payer healthcare system that includes mental health

PsiChick:Noticeably F.A.T.: PsiChick: In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

You're missing my point. We've tried Prohibition, and it not only didn't reduce violence, it created violence. Gun restrictions, however, have evidence of working in nations very similar to ours, and therefore has evidence supporting it.

The evidence supports restricting guns, not banning alcohol.

You are vastly, vastly overstating the similarity of our countries to the others. The differences aren't hugely obvious but they are quite significant.

PsiChick:In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

Prohibition never works. If there's a demand, somebody will supply it, and people who want to misuse whatever simply will. Add to that the fact that if you had your way, you would quite literally provoke a flat-out civil war. How many people are you willing to kill in an effort to try yet again your already failed ideology? People like you are an absolute threat to our basic freedoms and civil liberties. We will not be disarmed, period. We are a free people, and one way or the other, we will remain so until we die.

Awhile back, right after Newtown, I learned of a conversation at the proverbial water cooler between two members of different branches of government. This was when there was actual talk of the Feinsteinian "go around to each house and collect them all" type of legislation. Two professionals were calmly and rationally talking about quite literally exchanging fire with each other if things warranted it in their minds. It reminded me of a convesation I had back in the '90s, shortly after the "29 Palms" survey became public knowledge. I put the controverisal question to a young piss and vinegar "Ring Knocker", and was surprised by his response, which was, and I quote: "Not only no, but HELL no, and I'd shoot the Son of a biatch that gave me such an illegal order." There's a metric fark-ton of us out there that took and take the Oaths we've sworn seriously. Your ideology produced hundreds of millions of corpses in the last century. "Never again. Not on our watch."

PsiChick:In your alternate reality where the Prohibition never happened and Britain and Canada don't exist, yes, I'm sure it does.

It's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of the folks you asked to look at the problem. It's not my fault (or problem) that they don't agree with you.

I have a feeling this attitude is why the recent study hasn't seen more publicity. They people crying the loudest for it didn't get the result they wanted, so they've been ignoring it. "Gun control isn't really doing much? Community improvement programs have show the most effectiveness? Limited access to drugs and alcohol (and not guns) also seems to reduce violence as much as anything else? Anonymous ownership/user statistics are sufficient for continued studies, and registration isn't needed and should be avoided to protect civil liberties? That's not what I wanted to hear at all!"

/Please, don't believe me. I wouldn't. I would go read it for my own damn self though.

PsiChick:One solution has evidence of working, the other has evidence of not working...nope, no difference here! Those theories are exactly the same!

You're right. Not in the way you think you are (at least, not according to the CDC), but you are right. According to the study you wanted done, reduced access to alcohol has been shown to reduce violence across the board (including gun violence), while gun bans have shown little to no evidence of reducing gun violence.

dittybopper:Giltric: dittybopper: Giltric: The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants

NYC, or NYS? Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.

My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.

The farmer started using pig shiat on the lot across the road from them just to turn the screws a bit.....

Giltric:dittybopper: Giltric: The only reason I was applying for a can is because I shoot on my property. My neighbors are a mile away but are NY transplants

NYC, or NYS? Because there can be a very, very big difference.

Obnoxious city folk that even the other city transplants don't like.

My favorite are the ones that buy property in farm country in the fall or winter, then biatch about the smell in the spring when the manure spreaders start working, followed closely by the ones that biatch about the sound of gunshots in the fall during hunting season.

Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

heili skrimsli: PsiChick: /And yeah, it's outside the topic of this thread--as was you coming in and playing the ad hominem game.

My Boobies in this thread was 3 hours before you joined it with your utter lack of understanding of the topic at hand. I made three posts before you showed up to show us all how little you actually know by claiming that the CDC has been 'prevented' from actually studying the statistics and demographics homicides involving firearms.

Several people called you out on that, and pointed you to the actual study, so you decided to name-drop Adam Lanza as if his criminal actions had anything whatever to do with NFA items (they didn't), and you were again called out by several people. In response to that, you moved the goal posts and tried to claim that him murdering his mother to steal her firearms is 'the same idea' as felons getting relatives to create NFA trusts and buy machine guns for them.

And again, more than one person called you out on it, but you decided that I came into this thread solely to persecute you. On the contrary, I recognized your username and the type of posts I've seen you make before, and pointed out that this is your usual style so that people could potentially avoid wasting their time trying to actually educate you on the facts.

You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.

Fine: You coming in to a conversation I was having with other people. Here, I've bolded the parts for you that are relevant to my argument. Including from other posts.

The CDC was previously banned from studying gun violence. That was a big shiatstorm that Obama addressed; I wasn't aware the results had come out yet. As I said: I goofed.

As for the rest? The people in this thread are implying that NFA guns are somehow not subject to the same issues non-NFA guns are. Re-reading, I am coming off as strange, because quite frankly I do not see the logic in that. If you're going to argue that NFA guns should be exempt from the rules of non-NFA guns, you first have to prove that they are fundamentally different in a relevant way. At no point was this proof ever offered. My fault in this argument was to not ask for this proof straight off and instead accept the assumption, which I do take responsibility for. Next time I have a discussion, I'm going to take a minute and walk out the logic before posting, instead of going with the obvious response.

Here's a clue for you about the CDC:

Neither of the Cs stand for crime.

As for the idea that you were having some sort of private conversation that I intruded upon, you posted publicly in a thread. Your ignorant, factually incorrect and intellectually facile comments are fair game for calling out, by me or anyone else who recognizes the bullshiat for what it is.

When my wife decided to spawn, we started early with firearms training for the little one. One great thing about the Glock: If you remove the slide assembly, the frame doesn't rust as a result of baby slobber. Tactical Teether FTMFW!!!

PsiChick:Yes, clearly when I look at the fact that, in nearly every nation, stricter gun control laws correlates almost identically with less gun violence, I'm just projecting and expressing psychological issues.

Also if you break gun violence down by race you'll see that black people shouldn't own guns, either.

heili skrimsli:You can call that an 'ad hominem' game all you want, but you have a reputation around here for either not knowing the facts or intentionally distorting them in order to promote your own poorly informed opinion - much like you're doing right now by claiming that I 'came into' this thread to call you names.

She bases her arguments more on emotion instead of facts: Kids are dead, and so is the person to blame, but God-dammit, we have to punish *SOMEONE* for such a heinous act.

She doesn't put it that baldly, of course, and she may not even actually consciously realize that is what is going on in her head, but if she had a moment of honest reflection, she'd see that is where much of her motivation lies.

PsiChick:Adam Lanza (or however you spell his name) might take that wager.

And he'd lose. If he weren't dead, that is.

You don't know anything about federal or state firearms laws. So stop imposing your fundamentally evil morality on everyone else.

We all know you'd gladly kill everyone around you if ever given the opportunity to hold a loaded rifle. That's why you want to ban everyone else from having them; because you know that you can't be trusted with power. You can't stand that other responsible and exceptional citizens wield this power: you project your own evil desires to kill and maim on these upstanding citizens.

You should see someone about your problem, before it grows out of control.

base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.

And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on

So lets have all women who want an abortion file for a 200 dollar tax stamp, go through months of background checks, harassment by lying thugs, then require sign off by their CLEO and in 12-13 months if they still can afford their abortion, they get permission.

A Friendly Color:Derp.It took me just under a year from the day I had enough money and knew what weapon I wanted. You literally have to get your local Chief of Police to sign a letter saying you're okay. If you live in a big town? Well...good luck.

The CLEO signoff requirement under the NFA is quite literally the last Federally-enforced Jim Crow law.

mbillips:Hunters can use ear protection. The awesome thing about the modern kind is that you can hear squirrels moving at MUCH longer distances, but the sound of the shot is blocked out by the active earplugs.

They can also use suppressors. The availability of another option doesn't make the first option invalid. The fact that earplugs exist doesn't make your original assertion that "Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins." any less ridiculous.

You're also completely sidestepping the other benefits mentioned. Suppressors are often used in conjunction with other protection, not as a replacement (as has been mentioned more than once in the thread, they don't make a shot quite, just quieter). Also, earplugs only protect the shooter, suppressors protect everyone else. There are more than a few outdoor ranges in close proximity to other occupied places (the one in Cherry Creek State Park is one I'm personally familiar with). While the noise isn't at dangerous levels outside the range, I'm sure the other folks in the park would still enjoy a quieter range. Also, I know hunters using earplugs (even active earplugs) would still appreciate quieter guns in the woods, as far as I know deer don't follow OSHA regulations and have a habit of vacating the area when a shot is fired. Reducing that area is a good thing.

/Cars don't need mufflers, people can just drive with earmuffs on. The only people who need mufflers are getaway drivers.

PsiChick:Did I personally offend you at some point or something? I swear, I've seen almost exactly this comment in more than one thread...

Offend me? Only in so far as I find ignorant hubris distasteful.

I've seen you around in a lot of threads condescending over topics that you don't know anything about, and generally lecturing people on whatever you learned in your freshman women's studies class, and considering the responses you're getting from Click Click D'oh and others in this thread, I'm not the only person who doesn't hold your posts in high esteem.

PsiChick:Click Click D'oh: PsiChick: Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?

The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: Eight Billion (roughly)NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: 2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue. The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Keep those Goal posts moving.

NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...

If someone is using an NFA type weapon that wasn't registered, it means it was either stolen or smuggled in from outside the country. But yes you were moving the goalposts. I specifically called out NFA weapons. If they aren't registered as pre-86 weapons, then they cannot be NFA weapons.

PsiChick:NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...

The whole point of the thread, in case you missed it, is new rules regarding the requirements for NFA registration. And yes, you have to have your tax stamp (proof of completion of NFA registration) before taking possession of an NFA item. So no. No one can legally own a NFA item without having the Tax Stamp.

As I've been saying, you have not the slightest clue what you are blathering about.

Click Click D'oh:PsiChick: Can you prove that the type of gun is an important factor in gun crime, then?

The facts as they are:

Non-NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: Eight Billion (roughly)NFA firearms used in the commission of crimes since 1934: 2

The fact that you keep lumping NFA items in with every other gun available mean that either 1) You truly have no clue what you are on about -or- 2) are intentionally conflating the two items to create confusion about what the real scope of the issue. The truth is that NFA firearms are simply not used to commit crimes on any appreciable scale.

Keep those Goal posts moving.

NFA-registered? Yeah...that's moving the goalposts. After all, there's no way someone could buy a gun and not register it, no sirree bob...

lordaction:The Constitution only applies to muskets because that is the only firearm technology that existed when the document was written. It is just like we only have freedom of speech/press if it is printed on a gutenburg press and does not apply to the internet of cell phones. For us liberals, this is all perfectly logical.

This is not what we call a machinegun. In that usage, 'automatic' is a jargon term that means 'self-loading and extracting'... in other words, it's what we'd call a semi-automatic weapon today. At the time, it was used to distinguish that type of weapon from something like a revolver, bolt-action, or lever-action gun. (The revolver doesn't extract casings after use, the bolt action and the lever action both loads and extracts, but the action must be operated manually.)

Case in point: Colt didn't make any machineguns at that time, other than the M1895 machinegun, which is definitely *not* a crime gun. It's a tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine gun.

Pretty Boy Floyd's criminal career was in the early '30s. Colt manufactured the Maxim/Vickers and the Browning M1917 under license during WWI. They also manufactured 15,000 Thompson submachine guns.

But what he's referring to is the "baby machine gun," which a certain San Antonio gunsmith made from the Colt 1911 and supplied to gangsters and bank robbers, including Floyd.

Yeah, this puppy:Which, whatever else we may believe, I think we can all agree is a sin against God, nature, and John Moses Browning

Do you mount your goalposts in a truck to keep them that mobile? The original question was in regards to how many times a family member has purchased an NFA item to provide to a family member to commit crime.

If you don't know how apples and oranges that is from the Lanza incident, you aren't qualified to talk about NFA transactions.

PsiChick:Scroll up. I'm referring to the principle, not the weapon type--gun crime isn't really something that depends on the type of gun, the attacker will use what's available.

mbillips:Two kinds of people need suppressors. Special forces and assassins.

Just because you can't think of another reason (or refuse to acknowledge the other reasons given to you) doesn't mean they don't exist or are not valid. It just means you are unimaginative and/or ignorant.

PsiChick:redmid17: PsiChick: Dimensio: PsiChick: Zane256: Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.

That might be the point...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

This is not what we call a machinegun. In that usage, 'automatic' is a jargon term that means 'self-loading and extracting'... in other words, it's what we'd call a semi-automatic weapon today. At the time, it was used to distinguish that type of weapon from something like a revolver, bolt-action, or lever-action gun. (The revolver doesn't extract casings after use, the bolt action and the lever action both loads and extracts, but the action must be operated manually.)

Case in point: Colt didn't make any machineguns at that time, other than the M1895 machinegun, which is definitely *not* a crime gun. It's a tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine gun.

PsiChick:No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

Straw purchasers are rarely prosecuted.

Even when felons fill out a 4473 and fail a background check they are rarely prosecuted.

One of the states claimed 73000 denied purchases due to one reason or another from peoples 4473/nics check...yet only 13 prosecutions.

Start enforcing the laws on the books.....why make every transfer of a firearm subjected to a background check (the proposed UBC) when the denied purchasers aren't even prosecuted as per the current background check system?

PsiChick:Dimensio: PsiChick: Zane256: Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.

That might be the point...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

No, the purpose is to reduce criminal possession--by stopping the criminals from getting their sister\brother\parent\relative from buying it for them.

PsiChick:PsiChick:/We need real statistics on who commits gun killings and why before we try to address the problem.//And thank you so much, gun lobbyists, for stopping the CDC from getting us those statistics.

We have that information. In fact, the CDC has it. You can find it here:

Choose "homicide" in the first section, and "firearms" in the second, and then you can play around with the different demographic groups in the third section to get a pretty good idea where the problem lays.

PsiChick:Zane256: Of course the Obama administration ignores that whomever is picking up the NFA item still fills out a 4473 and has to under go a NICS check.

Sure, they could still hand them to a felon, but then so could someone who fills out the Form 4 as an individual. The felon still can't possess the item. This just makes it more difficult for all members of a family to legally possess the NFA item.

That might be the point...

You are saying, then, that the actual purpose is not to reduce criminal possession of such devices, and that the claim of such a motive is a lie?

Giltric:Magorn: Giltric: Magorn: Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts. See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states. Is that really the argument that you want to make?

Nope, a Colt 1908 pocket automatic in .380. Assuming that wasn't just a throwdown weapon planted by the FBI; they pretty much were using a "shoot first" policy toward the Dillinger gang by that point. And it may have just been something Hoover made up; the gun he displayed for years as Dillinger's gun was made five months after Dillinger's death. Hoover claimed he gave the original to Red Skelton, but it's since disappeared, if it ever existed.

"The Union Station Massacre" is a great book that documents what a complete tissue of lies the FBI's public statements were during the war on "Public Enemy" armed robbers and kidnappers in 1933-34. Hoover lied and covered up as a matter of course, and succeeded in growing the FBI from an obscure prosecutor's investigative arm to the national secret police.

Not that Dillinger and his ilk didn't deserve it, but the FBI were a bunch of incompetent college kids getting themselves killed until they brought in some veteran gunmen to basically murder the bank robbers. Hoover's BS about scientific investigation was just that; nearly all of the FBI's successes were based on tips developed by actual cops, or through illegal wiretaps and witness torture.

Silly_Sot:So, what is this extremely butthurt blog complaining about, that it is going to become harder to do an end-run around the law?

Again I find myself explaining things to people that apparently don't give a crap about learning what's actually going on and are spoon fed their information by liars (typical Obama supporter). This does not address an "end-run around the law". Even if a NFA application is made under a trust of corporation, the person taking possession of the NFA item still has to pass a background check and fill out the Form 4473. It is still 100% illegal for a felon to posses a firearm even if it is obtained through an NFA trust or corporation. Even the ATF admits that a felon has never gotten a gun through the NFA process and the only time it was attempted the ATF caught them. (because they still need to fill out the form 4473 and get the background check).

This new rule does absolutely zero to close any "loopholes" that have been allowing prohibited person from getting guns because there is no such thing. Federal law is quite clear that Felons are prohibited from possessing a firearm. All the NFA stamp does is allow a legally owned firearm to have certain features such as a short barrel or the ability to operate in automatic fire mode. The NFA stamp absolutely does not grant the ability to own a firearm to a prohibited person. All the new rules will do is make it more difficult, or impossible for law abiding citizens following the legal application process to get NFA items.

Magorn:Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts. See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states. Is that really the argument that you want to make?

They work by making the guns themselves so freaking expensive that essentially only the 1% can afford them?

Magorn:Might not want to talk too loudly about machine guns aren;t used all that often by criminals, gun-nuts. See what that proves is that gun Control laws DO work, so long as they are federal and not left to the states. Is that really the argument that you want to make?

IdBeCrazyIf:base935: As a law-abiding citizen, who has to wait 8 months for a Federal agency to sign my $200 tax stamp, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/Obamalaws (tm) aren't intended to accomplish anything. They are simply attacks against the law-abiding's freedom.

And yet at the end of the process you'll still have your toy, so how is your freedom infringed on

That's like saying that "free speech zones" aren't an inherent infringement on your free speech rights, even though you can say whatever you want in some abandoned parking lot where nobody will hear you.

EvilEgg:dittybopper: The ease with which criminals can legally by machine guns they aren't eligible to own just has to stop!

Mrbogey: Obama actually thinks this happens.

I know, the GOP would never try to pass laws to combat a problem that didn't exist. That is why they are so down on the anti-voter fraud laws.

We don't need to combat voter fraud because no one gets convicted of voter fraud just like we don't need to combat excesses by the banking industry because banking industry executives don't get convicted.

smokingcrator:Typical shooters hearing protection muffs are 26 to 30 db of reduction. 33 is about the max. So no, if the silencer reduces it by 30db, you do NOT need hearing protection. It would be no louder than shooting with a good pair of hearing protection muffs already on.

And even at that reduction, if you shoot a lot, you're still doing damage to your hearing, especially if you're shooting at indoor ranges.

Wouldn't you take a 60 dB reduction in noise over a 30 dB reduction? I would.

dittybopper:Replace it with a notification to the local CLEO instead of a requirement that they sign off on it, and the option to file in opposition if there is some reason the CLEO knows that the person shouldn't get the gun.

The local cops in my town have no need to know what legal items I possess. At all. And that includes firearms.

This is the kind of thing that should get anyone mad, regardless of how you personally feel about guns:

The Subcommittee received evidence that BATF has primarily devoted its firearmsenforcement efforts to the apprehension, upon technical malum prohibitum charges, of individualswho lack all criminal intent and knowledge. Agents anxious to generate an impressive arrest and gunconfiscation quota have repeatedly enticed gun collectors into making a small number ofsales-often as few as four-from their personal collections. Although each of the sales wascompletely legal under state and federal law, the agents then charged the collector with having"engaged in the business" of dealing in guns without the required license. Since existing law permitsa felony conviction upon these charges even where the individual has no criminal knowledge orintent numerous collectors have been ruined by a felony record carrying a potential sentence of fiveyears in federal prison...In several cases, the Bureau has soughtconviction for supposed technical violations based upon policies and interpretations of law whichthe Bureau had not published in the Federal Register, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552. For instance,beginning in 1975, Bureau officials apparently reached a judgment that (pg.22) a dealer who sells toa legitimate purchaser may nonetheless be subject to prosecution or license revocation if he knowsthat that individual intends to transfer the firearm to a nonresident or other unqualified purchaser.This position was never published in the Federal Register and is indeed contrary to indicationswhich Bureau officials had given Congress, that such sales were not in violation of existing law...The Constitution Subcommittee also received evidence that the Bureau has formulated arequirement, of which dealers were not informed that requires a dealer to keep official records ofsales even from his private collection. BATF has gone farther than merely failing to publish thisrequirement. At one point, even as it was prosecuting a dealer on this charge (admitting that he hadno criminal intent), the Director of the Bureau wrote Senator S. I. Hayakawa to indicate that therewas no such legal requirement and it was completely lawful for a dealer to sell from his collectionwithout recording it. Since that date, the Director of the Bureau has stated that that is not theBureau's position and that such sales are completely illegal; after making that statement, however,he was quoted in an interview for a magazine read primarily by licensed firearms dealers as statingthat such sales were in fact legal and permitted by the Bureau. In these and similar areas, the Bureauhas violated not only the dictates of common sense, but of 5 U.S.C. Sec 552, which was intendedto prevent "secret lawmaking" by administrative bodies.

That's the reason why the ATF was "hamstrung": Because it was violating the due process rights (never mind the Second Amendment rights) of the people they were prosecuting, so much so that Congress felt it had to step in and limit what the ATF was allowed to do.

Even if you think guns should be completely outlawed, I'm sure you would agree that secret rule-making by government agencies in order to advance that is unAmerican, and sets a really, really bad precedent.

Did you submit it last week too with a different headline? Because this is a repeat - as are all of your points in every gun thread. (Don't mind conceding that you're very well informed). But dude...you're completely obsessed. You dominate every firearm discussion thread and have tried on several occasions to steer non-gun threads into 2nd Amendment debates. And then there are the pics... I guess my point is that this degree of dedication go well past "hobby and interest" and veers into, I don't know, idolatry. It also discounts the value of your opinion.

Maybe I should have phrased that better: all hearing damage (however slight) is cumulative.

Firing modern firearms with one form of hearing protection (just earmuffs or just earplugs) only nets about a 20-30db reduction in sound pressure. Unfortunately, most firearms generate sound pressures in the range of 140-170db, so one form of protection only gets you down to 110-140db. This is above the threshold for hearing damage (85db), so even though the hearing protection makes the sound quieter, it doesn't mean that it's protecting you from all hearing damage.

Put simply: firing a modern handgun or rifle with only one form of hearing protection results in hearing damage every time you pull the trigger. It's not enough to deafen you immediately, it's not enough to notice in a before/after comparison, but it does cause damage. If you shoot guns like that for years on end, that damage accumulates and generates a significant loss of hearing ability.

Zane256:c0penhaqen: The reason most people set up a trust or LLC to obtain NFA items is to name family members as members of the trust. When an individual is named as the owner of an NFA item, upon that persons' death the item in question should be forfeited to the BATFE. It cannot be willed or left to family members.

Completely untrue. They are passed, tax free, on a Form 5.

The reason you do a trust is a) to avoid the CLEO b) so that other family members can possess the items. If the Form 4 is filled out as an individual, only the person who is list on the form can possess the Title II weapon.

Just to make this clear: possession = access, as well. If I had an NFA weapon as an individual, and kept it in the same safe as everything else, and my wife had the combo, she would illegally have access to it, and thus possession. Fine, I'll get another safe for my NFA stuff.

We go to the range, and stop for lunch on the way home. She has keys to my car, which I lock the gun in. She has access to it, and therefore possession. OK, we'll drive separately, and I'll take her keys away from her while it's in my car.

We go visit family (in separate vehicles of course!) and bring my NFA gun so they can check it out. While we're there, we leave it locked in their safe, since we're good gun owners and don't want it left out for kids to find. But wait, they have access to their safe, and thus possession of the NFA gun.

THIS is why I formed a trust. Not to get around the CLEO provision, or to avoid having to do fingerprints or pictures (although those were nice bonuses)... but to keep me and mine out of FPMITA prison and paying $10,000 fines.

pyrotek85:n0nthing: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.

You have to wonder then why are they going after the far more difficult and expensive ways to obtain machine guns and suppressors? They're not targeting the 'loophole', they're focusing on the least likely way a criminal will get this hands on a machine gun. It really does look like they're just doing this to piss off gun owners, and not combat crime in any manner.

It's propaganda. If you're against it then you want to make it easy for criminals and turrsts to get machine guns that can shoot down airplanes silently from the hip.

n0nthing:Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: n0nthing: It's also not terribly difficult, expensive, or illegal to purchase a machine gun kit, an 80% receiver, and a dremel.

Yeah, then there's that whole "ten years and $10,000 fine" thing for illegal manufacturing of a Title II firearm...

Sure, building out the receiver as full auto is probably not healthy for your future freedom...merely pointing out that there are relatively easy and cheap ways to legally obtain all of the parts needed to assemble a full-auto firearm.

You have to wonder then why are they going after the far more difficult and expensive ways to obtain machine guns and suppressors? They're not targeting the 'loophole', they're focusing on the least likely way a criminal will get this hands on a machine gun. It really does look like they're just doing this to piss off gun owners, and not combat crime in any manner.

whatsupchuck:Is this a "We just need better enforcement of existing laws" week, or is it an "Existing laws are stupid and unenforcable" week? What with the excitement of the long holiday it seems I've lost track.

It is "Let's pass us some laws to stop somethin' I saw on the teevee! Herp!" week.

Devo:Are gun rights advocates against any additional regulations? That is what I am getting out of this. Is it that they are afraid of a slippery slope? Give and inch and Obama has your guns? Is regulation a dirty word? Please explain.

Did you read the article? Are you familiar with the NFA process of obtaining machine guns, silencers? Are you aware of any actual instances where the "loophole" Obama is saving us from resulted in an NFA item falling into the hands of a prohibited person? Let alone any instances where said NFA item was used in the commission of a crime.

c0penhaqen:Personally, I don't have a problem with a change in the law which requires a NICS check for all members of the trust or changes which require CLEO sign-off as long as a few provisions are provided.

Kit Fister:IdBeCrazyIf: gopher321: thought it was called a suppressor?

Yes, and you can actually make one really easily out of an oil filter, so even attempting any regulation of them is pretty stupid

And for $50 plus the tax stamp, you can buy an adapter that uses oil filters instead of a dedicated can.

However based on ATF rulings, you, as an individual, cannot legally replace the oil filter. It must be done by an 07/02 as a repair. Cadiz Gunworks will replace it for you for a small fee if you buy their version.